[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

In message <[🔎] F4CCEC28-FE42-4AF3-B0C0-C832A6B0DE1D@dalkescientific.com>, Andrew Dalke <dalke@dalkescientific.com> writes
I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and by doing so you are taking away user rights.

Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...


Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.

Let's say I write a load of code, and release it with a notice saying "this code is licenced as 'GPL version 2 or later' ".

What this give YOU is the right to redistribute the code according to the terms of the GPL v3. BUT - READ THE GPL - the people to whom you give the code get their licence from ME, NOT YOU. And I granted the licence as "v2 or later".

So, AT NO POINT WHATSOEVER, does my code become v3, whatever you say or do. If you modify my code and licence your stuff as v3, the resulting work then becomes v3-only because the licence of the work as a whole is the subset of the individual licences - here v3 - but my code still remains v2+.

Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk

Reply to: